M/S Hb Travels vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s HB Travels, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice to the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constituted proper service under Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that this method of notification did not amount to valid service. The revenue authorities, represented by the State of Haryana and the Union of India, were the respondents. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this matter was brought before the High Court as a writ petition.

Held

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and had been conclusively decided by previous judgments of the Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders and Others, and a subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The ratio decidendi from these judgments would establish the legal principle regarding the validity of service through the GST portal. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the prior rulings, implying that the Court found the service to be valid or that the petitioner's challenge was not sustainable based on precedent. No specific amount was ordered to be deleted or refunded, and no issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice to the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, amounts to proper service of notice and order-in-original in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that this method of notification did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and the Union of India, contended that such an upload on the GST portal is indeed valid service. Both parties were ad idem that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is crucial for due process. The revenue likely relied on interpretations of Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, and potentially prior judicial pronouncements supporting their stance on electronic service.